Public Bill Committee

[Mr Lee Scott in the Chair]

Schedule 8  - Transitional and saving provision

Question proposed, That the schedule be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Good morning to you, Mr Scott, and to the Committee.
We continue our deliberations on this very important Bill. Will the Minister explain the thinking behind the schedule and the circumstances in which it will apply, as that would be helpful not only for me but for the Committee?

Paul Goggins: May I, too, welcome you to the Chair this morning, Mr Scott? We are entering the last lap of this interesting process, although, as I am getting on a bit in years, I find that the last lap takes longer.

Tobias Ellwood: Ending up going round in circles.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good intervention, but the finishing line for the Committee is in sight.
I am interested in the Minister’s response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South, but I want to make a few observations. The schedule looks rather innocuous—it covers the obvious practical arrangements for moving from one system to another—but it throws up one or two important issues, which the Minister will want to address.
Section 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 makes it clear that a control order can last for up to 12 months, and can be renewed on one or more occasions. As things stand under the Act, it can continue indefinitely. We have had some well-informed debates in Committee about the merits of limiting the time for which a control order or a terrorism prevention and investigation measure can operate. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles moved a constructive amendment, which offered the opportunity for a further extension of one year beyond the two-year maximum. I hope that the Minister has given thought to that and to the other issues that we have raised.
Under the schedule, the transitional period is set at 28 days, beginning on the day of commencement. I look forward to the Minister’s explanation, but I understand that existing control orders will remain in force throughout the transitional period. However, when I first read paragraph 4, I wondered how on earth the Minister had got it past his Liberal Democrat colleagues, because it will give the Secretary of State a rather interesting power. The paragraph, headed “New powers not affected by previous control order”, states:
“The Secretary of State’s powers under this Act in relation to an individual are not affected by a control order having been made in relation to that individual.”
That provokes several interesting questions.
How does the paragraph square with the Government’s policy—it is apparently written in stone, according to the response that we received the other day—that requirements imposed on a suspect should last no longer than two years? The Minister may want to advise us about some of the current control orders and how long they have lasted. May I ask him straight out what the longest period is that a control has now been running? As we enter the transitional period, how long will that control order last? Under the Bill, the Minister will give the Secretary of State the power to extend the period of restriction in a control order—let us assume that it has run for four years—for a further two years, which means that, in that hypothetical case, the restrictions under the two different regimes will last for six years. In earlier exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles, the Minister’s avowed position was that two years had to be the maximum, yet he is giving the Secretary of State powers to make a much longer term.
Also, is it fair that some individuals who are subject to conditions under the TPIM regime would by definition not have to be subject to those requirements for more than two years, while others who were subject to the TPIM requirements would be subject to restrictions for a much longer period? What legal advice has the Minister received and does he think he is on safe ground? If I were under a control order and then subject to the TPIM, I would be talking to my lawyer. Given that the Government’s policy is that nobody should be under such arrangements for more than two years, I would try to construct a case to challenge the Government, so I am interested to know what legal advice the Minister has had and whether he can share it with the Committee.
If the Minister is giving the Secretary of State the power to take someone subject to the control order, perhaps for a two or three-year period, into the new arrangement, perhaps for as long as two years, why could he not accept my right hon. Friend’s perfectly sensible proposal to have the option to extend for a maximum of one further year where the terrorist threat was such that that was felt to be both necessary and proportionate? Somebody can be on a control order for four years, subject to TPIMs for two years and therefore under restrictions for six years. How can that be right when the Minister is not allowing the Secretary of State to extend it up to three years in the case of someone who has not been on a control order and comes into the TPIM system? Schedule 8 appears innocuous, but I think that the Minister needs to address some pretty substantial questions.
I have one more important issue to raise with the Minister, which is the case of an individual who may have been subject to a control order in the past but who either previously or at the point of transition is no longer subject to requirements. In other words, they are released from the conditions of their control order. However, what if the Secretary of State receives intelligence from the Security Service, backed up by the police, that the person who was previously on a control order now poses a serious threat? They cannot be prosecuted for all the reasons that we have previously debated, but they pose a serious threat. It is a factual question. Under the definition of “new terrorism-related activity” in clause 3, will the information that led to the making of the control order count as new information in relation to the making of a TPIM? The Committee—and the wider public—would want reassurance that a TPIM would be possible in such circumstances.
Schedule 8 appears straightforward, but it throws up many pressing issues of a practical nature and of principle too. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Stephen Phillips: It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair this morning, Mr Scott, to continue our debate on this important Bill. I listened with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. I was initially slightly perplexed by paragraph 4, given the Government’s settled position, which I think is correct, that a TPIM should last no longer than two years. However, a moment’s reflection indicated to me that the measure is warranted, because of the change of regime between control orders and TPIMs. As I understand it, what is proposed by the Government is to some extent a change in culture, which will result in a greater focus on the investigation of terrorism. Having reflected on the matter, I do not foresee any objection to a controlee who has been subject to a control order for a number of years becoming subject to a TPIM notice for a maximum of two years.
I was slightly surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s objections to the provision, given that amendments tabled by the Opposition have, at least partly, suggested that the Bill is unnecessary and that the existing regime was adequate. The Opposition’s position has been that a controlee could remain subject to a control order under the old regime for as long as necessary. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman’s protest that the Government’s position is inconsistent reveals an inconsistency in the Opposition’s position, which depends on the argument that someone subject to a control order should remain so for a period greater than two years.

Paul Goggins: It is for Ministers to answer questions about the detail and inconsistencies of a Bill and it is for the Opposition to explain their position. There is a clear inconsistency, which the Minister must explain.
Had Labour won the election, there would have been a further terrorism review similar to the one carried out by this Government. Such a review might have reached different conclusions—I have told the Committee that I changed my position on pre-charge detention. There was always room for a policy review, whoever won the election, but the Government have reviewed policy and introduced a Bill with a big inconsistency.

Stephen Phillips: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me not only for being a bear of very little brain, but also for being a new Member and perhaps not always expressing myself well. I am trying, however, to explain my position rather than that of the Government, which I shall leave to the much abler capabilities of my hon. Friend the Minister.
Initially, I read paragraph 4 with the same concerns that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has set out. I am trying to do two things: first, to explain why I overcame those problems and, secondly, to hint politely that there is an inconsistency in the right hon. Gentleman’s position.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked—I offer my own view on this; it is for the Government to set out their position—what legal advice the Minister had received. He saw inconsistency between the policy of having a TPIM for two years and the possibility of someone who is subject to a control order, and subsequently to a TPIM, challenging that in law on the basis of the Government’s policy position. I shall leave the Minister to answer that, but any controlee subject to a TPIM who wants to make some sort of legal challenge should do so on the basis of the law and not on the basis of the Government’s policy provision. The courts may be many things, but they seek to apply the law rather than the Government’s policy—the law is the law as written. Paragraph 4 is useful, because if it becomes law it will make clear Parliament’s position that a controlee who has been subjected to a control order for any period can subsequently be made subject to a TPIM for two years.
I made some points in relation to the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles last week. I see no merit in the TPIM period being three, four, six or eight years instead of two; two years strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I understand the Government’s drafting in schedule 8. As powerful as the points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East seem at first glance, I am satisfied that paragraph 4 is not objectionable for the reasons that I have sought to develop, albeit inadequately. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister agrees.

James Brokenshire: Far be it for me to describe the contributions of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham as in some way inadequate; the Committee has been well informed and he has added to the debate. I welcome his comments and support, which have aided scrutiny—and that is what this Committee is intended to be all about. I very much welcome contributions from Members on both sides of the Committee, and it is healthy and positive to have such a debate. Members will accept that that is not always the case in Committee. [ Interruption. ]

Paul Goggins: The Conservative Whip has now returned, but I will still make my remarks. I strongly agree with what the Minister has just said. I first came to the House in 1997, and I vividly remember my first Committee, in which I sat for hour after hour and said absolutely nothing on the content of the Bill. I pay tribute to all members of the Committee, particularly Government Members, who have made the effort to stand up and ask sometimes difficult questions of the Minister. That has added enormously to our proceedings, and I pay tribute to them.

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. When our concluding remarks are made in the House about the scrutiny given to the Bill, I am sure that the welcome manner in which the Committee has comported itself will be noted, because it has added value to our consideration of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Bradford South asked me what the schedule will do. Obviously, it provides for the necessary transitional and saving provisions, and particularly for the transitional period of 28 days during which existing control orders may remain in force following the commencement of the Bill. The transitional period is essential to ensure a safe and managed transition to the new system that gives prompt effect to Parliament’s wishes, but does not put the public at risk.
The provision allows time for control orders to remain in place—a limited period of 28 days—during which the Secretary of State will consider the cases of those subject to them, including whether it is appropriate to impose a TPIM notice on them, and, when appropriate, apply to the court for permission to do so. When such a person is served with a TPIM notice, the control order will be revoked at the same time.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East asked about the Government’s confidence in the legal drafting and the manner in which the schedule will be interpreted. We are confident about our approach, and the provision in paragraph 4 underlines the fact that when a TPIM notice takes effect, it will not be fettered by a previous control order, which is an important part of the schedule. Although the right hon. Gentleman rightly identified that such schedules often appear to be not so significant at first sight, they can have relevant and important elements built into them, which is why I welcome this debate.

Bob Stewart: I am seeking clarification because, unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, I do not possess a legal brain. Will the Minister confirm that when TPIMs come in, someone on a control order will automatically be transferred off it and on to a TPIM, or have I got that wrong? I am not as clever as hon.—and hon. and learned—Members serving on the Committee, and we ex-Army Government Back Benchers need things explained carefully. Such an approach, however, would be logical, and I think the Minister is saying that there will be such a transfer.

James Brokenshire: I would not in any way question my hon. Friend’s intellect or the practical and real-life experience that he has brought to his contributions.
The Secretary of State will determine in individual cases whether the TPIM requirements apply in relation to each individual. Obviously, clear consideration will be given to those who are subject to an existing control order. The Secretary of State will need to review the provisions for each individual to ensure that the requirements of clause 3 are satisfied in each case. As we have indicated previously, there is a requirement for reasonable belief, and the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the relevant conditions will be met for a particular individual.
We touched on this in our debates on clauses 3 and 4, but it is worth clarifying the position on acts that occur prior to the Bill coming into effect. I refer the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East to clause 3(6)(a), which I hope will give him the assurance that he was seeking about existing activity and the definition of what constitutes “new terrorism-related activity” under the clause.

Hazel Blears: I apologise for arriving a few minutes late, Mr Scott.
I am sure that we will go on to debate clause 26, which is another seemingly innocuous provision about interpretation. However, I am a little confused about the interaction between clause 26(2) and the definition of “new terrorism-related activity”. If I am following the Minister correctly—I am trying to follow him closely—there will be a situation in which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham said, someone could be on a control order and the Secretary of State could then look afresh at whether it was necessary to impose measures under a TPIM. We could therefore have a situation whereby someone had been held for three years under a control order and then perhaps another two years under a TPIM. However, within the definition of new terrorism-related activity, clause 26(2) states:
“the Secretary of State is not prevented from taking account of that activity for the purposes of the continued imposition, or subsequent imposition, of measures on that individual.”
Are we saying that the acts of terrorism-related activity could be perhaps three or more years old and still be taken into account when considering the imposition of a TPIM? That seems contradictory. The thrust of the Bill is that we need new evidence of new involvement in terrorism before we impose such intrusive measures, yet that provision suggests that some of the incidents could be three or more years old but could still be relevant for the purposes of imposing a TPIM. Will the Minister address that apparent inconsistency?

James Brokenshire: We have addressed clause 3(6) and the way in which the approach is intended to operate with the two-year time period. If a further TPIM is sought, new terrorism-related activity would be required for it to be imposed. I think that the position is quite clear. I promise the right hon. Lady that I will consider what she has said so that we ensure that the drafting reflects my understanding of its intent on the imposition of a TPIM for the first time. We would be able to look back on the actions that had taken place prior to the Bill coming into force. Obviously, if a further TPIM was then sought, we would have to look further to new activity that might have occurred.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again, which reflects the spirit in which the Committee has been conducted, but I want to press him on this point. Is he saying that there could be circumstances in which evidence that was at least three or four years old could be used as the foundation for the imposition of a TPIM that could then be renewed again for a further year after its expiry? At the end of the period, that TPIM would be based on acts of terrorism-related activity from five or even six years previously. I do not say whether that is right or wrong, but it seems to go against the spirit of how the Bill has been introduced—the idea that what is required is a higher threshold and for people to have been involved in recent terrorism-related activity. I would welcome direct confirmation from the Minister of whether it is possible for a TPIM, which expires at the end of two years, to be based on evidence of terrorism-related activity that is at least five years old?

Lee Scott: Order. May I ask that interventions be kept as interventions?

James Brokenshire: I am grateful for your clarification, Mr Scott, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles for making her point clear. I appreciate that it is sometimes difficult to be succinct when discussing technical issues, but I am sure that members of the Committee will have clearly heard your desire, Mr Scott, to ensure that interventions are succinct.
As we have indicated all the way through our proceedings, we need arrangements to move from one regime to another. On the imposition of a TPIM, as the Bill implies, there will be no specific limit on the duration over which we can look back with regard to when a piece of intelligence or evidence arises. I again point the right hon. Lady to clause 3(6), which sets out the definition of “new terrorism-related activity” and the timings to be considered.
 Paul Goggins  rose—

James Brokenshire: I might be misunderstanding the point, so I apologise. The right hon. Gentleman might be able to assist me further.

Paul Goggins: I refer the Minister to page 24 of the explanatory notes, in which paragraph 129 clearly states:
“‘new’ activity must take place at some point after the original imposition of the measures”.
However, that does not apply to control orders. I know that the Government’s intention is to pretend that Labour was never in government and to remove everything, but should not control orders count for something?

James Brokenshire: I will happily reflect and look at Hansard to see whether I properly understand the issues raised by Opposition Members, but the provisions in the Bill look clear to me.
 Hazel Blears  rose—

James Brokenshire: The right hon. Lady will no doubt be able to assist further.

Hazel Blears: I shall be as direct as possible. Will the Minister confirm that it will be possible under his regime to make a TPIM notice on the basis of evidence that was gathered three or four years ago?

James Brokenshire: My clear understanding is that that will be possible in those circumstances. I was not trying to skirt around the right hon. Lady’s question. I thought that it was about what would happen when seeking a further measure that might be subsequently required, and how that would relate to the provisions in clause 3(6). I hope that that has been helpful to her.

Bob Stewart: I do not mind what the words here say, but evidence of terrorism from three or four years ago is relatively recent. In my experience, one can go back 12 years to get an indication of intention. I hope that we do not pass a law that does not allow us to go back considerably in time. This is about getting evidence of intention, and such evidence from three or four years ago is pretty recent. To be honest, I would go back all the way through life because that, in truth, is what the security services sometimes have to do. I support what the Minister says.

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend has fastened on an important point. Historical evidence might be relevant, but the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the TPIM remains necessary to protect the public and that the conditions under clause 3 are fulfilled. Old material alone might not necessarily show that there is a continuing risk and that therefore the relevant provisions in clause 3 are fully met. The information, the intelligence and the risk will have to be considered to ensure, on a case-by-case basis, that the conditions set out in clause 3 have been satisfied—[ Interruption. ]

Lee Scott: Order. If the hon. Member for Beckenham wishes to speak, will he intervene rather than calling out?

Bob Stewart: Telling off accepted.

James Brokenshire: I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some confirmation.
 Hazel Blears  rose—

James Brokenshire: I have clearly stirred up something, so I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady.

Hazel Blears: The Minister appears to have exposed an inconsistency at the heart of his own Bill. If he wants to review a TPIM, he must have evidence of new terrorism-related activity after a defined period of two years, yet the hon. Member for Beckenham says rightly that there might be evidence from years gone by on which to base a decision. The Minister says that, for a TPIM, there must be new evidence from a defined period—this comes to a full stop after two years—yet he is prepared to make a TPIM on the back of evidence from a control order that might be five, six or seven years old.

Stephen Phillips: On a point of order, Mr Scott. We are having a debate about clause 26, but we are actually on schedule 8. I know that the Minister has done his best to answer questions about schedule 8. We are about to move on to clause 26, and I think that the right hon. Lady can make her points then. I ask for guidance on whether she should do so. I have not spoken to such points because I wanted to discuss them in the context of the clause to which they relate, not schedule 8.

Lee Scott: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that point of order. I have no doubt that the Minister will now relate his comments to schedule 8 only.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate your ruling, Mr Scott. No doubt we will return to that point shortly, and hon. Members from all parties will be able to continue the debate, should they wish.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 8 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may impose a TPIM notice on a person who has been previously subject to a control order. It would not be appropriate at this stage to pre-empt a decision about whether any individuals who are subject to a control order should be subject to a TPIM notice, but it would be irresponsible and inconsistent with protecting the public to rule that out. When the time comes, the Home Secretary will need to consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether individuals who are currently controlled meet the statutory test for the imposition of measures under the TPIM regime, which includes whether imposing measures is necessary and proportionate.
Schedule 8 also provides for certain judicial proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 to continue, or to be brought after the repeal of the Act, for the purposes of determining whether a control order or an obligation imposed under a control order should be quashed. The need for the provision is clear. Although the 2005 Act will be repealed when the Bill is commenced, so the control order powers will no longer be available, ongoing litigation will need to continue. It is right that individuals who have been subject to control orders should retain their right to have their order reviewed by the court, or to bring or continue appeal or damages proceedings relating to that control order. That is why schedule 8 is important, and it is why I hope that the Committee will agree to it.
 Paul Goggins  rose—

James Brokenshire: Before I conclude, however, I give way for one last time to the right hon. Gentleman.

Paul Goggins: I hope that it is one last time. There is an important point that the Minister should not underestimate. I asked him to tell the Committee the longest period for which somebody had been under a control order. If he can explain that, it will be helpful, but I warn him that I may need to intervene again once I hear the answer.

James Brokenshire: I think that I am correct in saying that the longest duration of a control order has been more than four years. I do not think that that is any particular surprise or secret. As we have discussed in our previous debates, we are moving to a new regime that will focus not on keeping people on orders indefinitely, but on instead exiting them from measures at the end of the period.

Paul Goggins: The Minister has been extraordinarily generous in taking interventions this morning, which is appreciated. He tells us that the longest period is more than four years. I do not know whether the individual concerned is currently subject to a control order, but if he is, at the transition he will have been subject to control order conditions for more than four years, and might then be subject to TPIM conditions for a further two years, which would mean more than six years. I have still not had an adequate response about the inconsistency between a controlee who might have had six years’ conditions and those who, under the new system, will have no more than two years’ conditions. I am amazed that we have not had any interventions from Liberal Democrat Members, because they must be appalled by that inconsistent policy, but I look forward to the Minister’s response.

James Brokenshire: It is interesting that the Opposition are latching on to that point because they have argued against having any controls. If they had their way, people could be kept on orders perhaps for ever. We are introducing an important measure to make a transition from the control orders regime to the TPIM regime. I do not see any inconsistency, and the manner of moving from one regime to a new one is entirely appropriate. There might be a point of difference, and I accept that the Opposition feel that they wish to pursue it as a strong issue, but the Government’s approach to the transition from one regime to the next is reasonable. Following our counter-terrorism review, and for all the reasons that I have already given the Committee, we believe that the TPIM regime is the appropriate way to manage risk.

Julian Huppert: Does the Minister agree that the Opposition have slightly misunderstood some of the proposals? The two-year limit on a TPIM is not about the age of the evidence; it is an anti-warehousing provision. Under the system of control orders, people could be stuck for year after year, but we think that should not happen, unless someone has been convicted.

James Brokenshire: The point of difference between the Opposition and us is that they would have liked to have a year, another year and then another year, according to the control orders regime.
I do not wish to mischaracterise our lengthy debate because, to be fair, some comments have recognised that there should be an end point, and I do not wish to antagonise you, Mr Scott, by repeating previous debates or straying more widely than the provisions in the schedule. There may be a point of difference, but two years is an appropriate period. The schedule is an important part of the Bill, so it should be agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 8 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 26  - Interpretation etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—[ Interruption. ] If I ever have the opportunity, I would be delighted to visit his constituency. In the debate on schedule 8, he made the point that we were discussing clause 26, but this debate gives us the chance to go into even more detail on the clause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles is exactly right. Paragraph 129 on page 24 of the explanatory notes explains that TPIMs can extend beyond two years. It is extraordinary that, for the reasons we have given, Liberal Democrat Members have not kicked up a fuss about that. The Government have tried to sell the Bill as bringing in a different regime.

James Brokenshire: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how clause 26 will enable a TPIM notice to go on beyond two years? Will he point to the relevant provision in the clause that would allow that?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I might be wrong, but the explanatory notes state that the TPIM notice can go beyond two years if new activity occurs. [ Interruption. ] Well, I look forward to the Minister’s clarifying the position. The clause is about interpretation and the Government have sold the Bill as being different from control orders. We are concerned about that, and we will return to the matter in our discussions of the new clauses. The Minister may say that I am wrong, but it appears that there is an inconsistency in the Bill, because a TPIM notice can last more than two years.

Stephen Phillips: The point made by the hon. Gentleman may be valid, and it may give rise to the point of order that I made in reverse form, but my point related to schedule 8, and we are discussing clause 26.
We come to the point that the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles made, which is, perhaps, not a substantive point but a matter of drafting that the Minister might need to grapple with after Committee stage. Under clause 2, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that conditions
“A to E in section 3 are met”
before a TPIM notice can legitimately and lawfully be imposed. Condition B in clause 3(2) requires that
“some or all of the relevant activity is new terrorism-related activity.”
The measure may create a difficulty that might give rise to litigation, so it is important either for the Minister to set out a clear position today, or for the Department to go away and think about the content of clause 26. Subsection (2), which, as a matter of drafting, is an odd place for an interpretation provision, provides for a case in which a TPIM notice has come into force. As a result, for the purposes of clause 3, any terrorism-related activity is not new terrorism-related activity. None the less, under clause 26(2), the Secretary of State is entitled to take that activity into account for the
“purposes of the continued imposition, or subsequent imposition, of measures on that individual.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has rightly referred to the fact that the Government should be entitled to take into account for the purposes of the imposition of a TPIM notice previous terrorism-related activity. Will the Minister confirm that position, which would be consistent with the explanatory notes? The difficulty in the drafting relates not only to the location of the provision in the Bill, but to the fact that it is not clear what is meant by
“taking account of that activity”
for the purposes of the continued imposition, or subsequent imposition, of measures. Does that mean that old terrorism-related activity, to coin a phrase, can override the primary provisions, so that condition B in clause 3(2) is to some extent undermined? Alternatively, does it mean that although new terrorism-related activity is a condition that must be met before a TPIM notice can be imposed, under clause 26(2) the Secretary of State is entitled to take into account previous terrorism-related activity?
The position is ambiguous, and I suspect that the Government intend the measure to be used as part of the transitional measures between the two regimes. In addition, we have focused on the primary provisions in clause 3 because they are key to the Bill and to the change in regime. The Government may believe that although those provisions should have primacy, the Secretary of State is none the less entitled to take into account—to have regard to, for want of a better phrase—what the controlee or the individual subject of a TPIM notice has previously been up to so that she can decide whether the measure should continue or whether it should be imposed in the first place.
With her extraordinary grasp of this area and her full, detailed knowledge and consideration of the Bill, for which I pay her enormous tribute, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles has raised an important matter. More than anything, however, the problem is one of drafting. It is not a point of substance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister—with the right hon. Lady having raised it and my having leapt on her coat tails—that he will look at this again.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for his masterly grasp of the way in which these various clauses interact—that is clearly a result of his experience. I would not describe him as a bear of little brain; he has just shown us that he is a bear with a large brain. I found his picking apart of those clauses instructive.
Clause 3(2) might resolve the issue, as it states:
“Condition B is that some or all of the relevant activity is new terrorism-related activity.”
When the Secretary of State is considering whether to make a TPIM, some old terrorism-related activity might form the background, but there would have to be sufficient new terrorism-related activity for the TPIM to grip on that new activity. That must be substantial enough to resist any application or appeal.
I am interested in the Minister’s view on the proportions that the Secretary of State might have regard to. If there was a wealth of old terrorism-related activity and a minor incident of new terrorism-related activity, would that provide a substantial foundation for a TPIM to be made? I am sure that he cannot do an 80:20 division, but these matters, as the Minister knows, will be intensely litigated from all sides, so the Minister must contemplate the balance of activity that could form the foundation under condition B for a TPIM. How much new terrorism-related activity is required for the TPIM to be made?
The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made a point about drafting. There is a similar point in clause 26(2), which states that
“the Secretary of State is not prevented from taking account of that activity”.
That is slightly confusing, and it may well be that that wording must be amended. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that an interpretation clause is an odd place for something that interacts with, and possibly overrides, clause 3.
I want to raise another matter with the Minister arising from clause 26(3). I would be grateful if he explained how that measure and the possible revival of a notice interacts with other clauses. Subsection (3) states that
“if a TPIM notice is revived under section 13(6), a reference to the notice coming into force is a reference to it coming into force by virtue of section 5(1) (and not to it coming back into force by virtue of section 13(9)).”
From reading the Bill, I am not sure whether that has an implication for how long the TPIM lasts. I would appreciate it if the Minister explained the need to make a distinction between a TPIM coming into force under clause 5(1) or its revival under clause 13(9) and what the material effect of that distinction is in clause 26(3). I have read the measure a number of times, and I am not currently able to reconcile those positions in the Bill. I am sure that there is a clear and transparent explanation for the drafting and I would be grateful to hear it from the Minister.

Paul Goggins: I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer to this particular line of inquiry. I pay tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles for putting their finger on an important issue. It demonstrates how we have tried as a Committee to be constructive on all sides to improve the Bill where we can. We are relying on the Minister to go away, consider the matter and being prepared to come back with alterations and amendments to make his Bill a better Bill. If hon. Members have played a part in that, that is to be welcomed.
The Committee may wish to probe the Minister on the definition of “measures” in clause 26:
“‘measures’” means terrorism prevention and investigation measures (which has the meaning given in section 2);”.
Section 2 refers to the list of measures in schedule 1 that can be imposed on an individual subject to a TPIM. I choose this moment because it might be the last opportunity for the Minister to give the Committee some indication that he has been reflecting hard over the weekend and in recent days on what those measures currently constitute. It has become increasingly clear during our deliberations that there is a difference between the arguments made by the Minister and by other Committee members about the adequacy of those measures. It is not just members of this Committee who have spoken about the inadequacies. We heard evidence from Mr Osborne during our first sitting that the challenges would increase as a result of the impossibility of relocation under the measures outlined in schedule 1. Lord Carlile, former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation and a respected authority on such issues, mentioned his concerns about the lack of a relocation measure. Lord Howard, a former Home Secretary, also expressed clear concerns about that omission.
The clause says that the definition of “measures” is as stipulated in section 2 and schedule 1, but I submit that those provisions are not adequate. We need confirmation from the Minister that he is still considering the issues. The definition might apply through the lifetime of the Bill and after it is enacted, but it is still possible that in our remaining deliberations, we could refine and add to those measures to provide a greater degree of public safety.
I have mentioned relocation. That is the principal concern—without doubt, it is the issue that all of us who have concerns would pick—but it is not the only one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned her concerns about the two-year time limit, and she has persuaded me of the importance of having an end in sight to such restrictions. It is important that we remain open-minded, but I still see the inconsistency between the Minister’s denial of her request for a three-year extension and the possibility that somebody could be under a control order for up to six years, or perhaps even more. That is a clear inconsistency, and it needs to be addressed.
There is no measure in the Bill to allow the imposition of any curfew outside the overnight period. Again, we still have no definition of what “overnight” means. That is another inadequacy. I tabled an amendment relating to a reserve power in exceptional circumstances, and I still hope that the Minister will come back with an amendment that at least reflects the same commitment that the Secretary of State gave on pre-charge detention, and hopefully goes much further than that.
There is a great deal more to hear from the Minister. I hope that he is still reflecting and will indicate, even at this stage, that during further debates on the Floor of the House on Report, he is prepared to be open-minded enough to accept some of the concerns that have been expressed and ensure that when measures are defined in clause 26, they are more adequate to control the threat from such individuals than they currently are.

James Brokenshire: It is fair to say that we have already debated some of the final points made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East at great length. He will have heard what I said in response to a number of issues, for instance on the report by the Joint Committee on the Draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills. We will consider the report carefully in the context not only of extended pre-charge detention and emergency legislation but of the relationship between them, and of what consideration might need to be given to the Bill in the light of the report. I think I have been quite straightforward and open about the fact that we will carefully examine and respond to the Joint Committee’s report. However, I am sure there will remain differences between us on a number of the Bill’s provisions and that our discussion of them will continue on Report, as they should.
I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their discussion of the detail of the drafting of subsections (2) and (3) of clause 26. As the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles suggested, the read-across between clause 26(2) and clause 3(2) highlights the point that some or all of the relevant activity will be new terrorism-related activity. In the context of clause 26(2), old terrorism-related activity may be considered in the overarching arrangement, because it may still show a pattern of risk, but there would still need to be new terrorism-related activity to obtain the new TPIM at the end of the two years. Clause 26(2) is important to underline that and to ensure that there is clarity of operation with clause 3, and I think that it does so.

Tobias Ellwood: My hon. Friend was pursuing this issue a little earlier, and I wanted to raise an example. If the two-year period for a TPIM was coming to an end and evidence emerged that a terrorism-related event had taken place six years before—it might not be enough to convict, but it might be a serious event—how would that fit with the Bill? Would the individual be subject to a continuation of the TPIM, or would the information be deemed to have decayed or to be too old to use?

James Brokenshire: Again, it is a question of looking at the definition of new terrorism-related activity in clause 3(6), which states that such activity takes place
“if no TPIM notice relating to the individual has ever been in force, terrorism-related activity occurring at any time…if only one TPIM notice relating to the individual has ever been in force, terrorism-related activity occurring after that notice came into force”.
It is always a question of the balance of risk and ensuring that all the relevant conditions have been satisfied, as set out in clause 3(6).
The right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles made a point about clause 26(3) under which, if there is evidence of new terrorism-related activity at any time after the first imposition of a TPIM notice, a new TPIM notice may be imposed beyond the two-year time limit. To be clear, if there is a TPIM notice, new terrorism-related activity takes place and the notice is revoked and subsequently revived, a new TPIM notice may be imposed after the end of the revived notice, provided that the conditions in clause 3 are met. If the new terrorism-related activity takes place after the revival of the notice, it, too, will count as new terrorism-related activity, which would allow for a new notice after two years.
The explanation I have just read into the record is obviously quite complex for all Members to take on board, to compute and to consider. It would therefore be appropriate—I have not done this so far in Committee—to write to Members so that they can see in black and white the explanation I have just given and any amplification I can offer. I entirely respect the right hon. Lady’s point, but it is important that we put these things properly on the record and allow right hon. and hon. Members to come back to us on Report if the explanation that I have given, as amplified by the letter that I will write, is not sufficient. The issue is a technical one, with distinctions with respect to revival, revocation and time periods. It would be helpful if I set out the detail in a letter to the Committee.

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the Minister for saying he will write to hon. Members on this point, for two reasons: first, because he has confirmed that I do not have a completely mushy brain making me incapable of working out the interaction of the clauses; secondly because it would be helpful to have a worked example of how the interaction might take place, showing someone’s journey through the TPIM process. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East raised an issue about old evidence. Those things are, I think, always easier to understand if it is possible to show what would happen when the clauses affected an individual case.

James Brokenshire: I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Lady sought clarity on the interaction of some technical aspects of the Bill. It is important that we provide assurances on that. I think I can offer an explanation in Committee, but on reflection it would be helpful all round if I wrote to hon. Members about the detail. I am very happy to consider the points made about clause 26(3) and write clarifying matters.
In the light of the comments and assurances that I have given, I trust that hon. Members will agree to the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27  - Short title, commencement and extent

Shabana Mahmood: I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 27, page 15, line 35, leave out from ‘Act’ to end of line and insert ‘will come into force the day after the Home Secretary reports to Parliament to confirm that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) below have been complied with—
(a) no later than one month after the day on which this Act is passed, the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism will, in consultation with other relevant police organisations and the security services, produce a report to the Home Secretary detailing the additional required resources (“required resources”) that will be needed to manage the increased risks arising from the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and the passing of this Act.
(b) no later than two months after the day on which this Act is passed the Home Secretary will agree with the Senior National Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism the required resources under paragraph (a) and the timetable for such required resources becoming deployable for use in implementing and managing measures relating to TPIM notices.
(c) This Act cannot come into force until the required resources as agreed under paragraph (b) above are made available and ready for deployment.’.

Lee Scott: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 141, in clause27,page15,line35,at end insert—
‘(2A) Except in so far as otherwise provided under this clause, clause 2 and all other consequential clauses in this Act will expire at the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.
(2B) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument—
(a) repeal clause 2; or
(b) provide that clause 2 will not expire at the time when it would otherwise expire under subsection (2A) of this clause but will continue in force after that time for a period not exceeding one year.
(2C) Before making an order under subsection (2B)(b) of this clause the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Independent Reviewer of Counter-Terrorism Legislation;
(b) the police; and
(c) the security services.
(2D) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this clause unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(2E) Subsection (2D) of this clause does not apply to an order that contains a declaration by the Secretary of State that the order needs, by reason of urgency, to be made without the approval required by subsection (2D).
(2F) An order under this clause that contains such a declaration—
(a) must be laid before Parliament after being made; and
(b) if not approved by a resolution of each House before the end of 40 days beginning with the day on which the order was made, ceases to have effect at the end of that period.
(2G) Where an order ceases to have effect in accordance with subsection (2F), that does not—
(a) affect anything previously done in reliance on the order; or
(b) prevent the making of a new order to the same or similar effect.’.

Hazel Blears: On a point of order, Mr Scott. Hon. Members will recall that when Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne gave evidence at our first sitting, he made a commitment to provide the Committee with details of the cost of surveillance. I have been attempting to speak to him on the telephone for a few days now, and apparently he is out of the country. My office spoke with the Metropolitan police this morning, and I think Assistant Commissioner Yates is taking responsibility while DAC Osborne is away.
The Metropolitan police told my office today that details of the cost would be before the Committee this morning, but I do not have a copy. It would help the Committee to have them when we consider amendment No. 126, which relates to additional costs and resources. Could the Clerks find out whether we are to be provided with that information, which is fundamental to our deliberations?

Lee Scott: It appears that no such evidence has been received by the Committee, but inquiries will be made before this afternoon’s sitting.

Shabana Mahmood: Resources have been much discussed in Committee. The thrust of amendment 126 came from the evidence of DAC Osborne in our first evidence-gathering session. Committee Members may find it helpful if I take them back to the important part of that evidence that relates to amendment 126. DAC Osborne told my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles that the police were comfortable with the control order regime, because it had had time to bed in and they were used to the system and resources, and the interplay between them.
I asked DAC Osborne what time scales he was working to in relation to the bedding-in process for the TPIM regime. He replied:
“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment. Until we have got that, we will not be able to start to bed things in and see how it works and how it transpires. It also depends on how many people actually go on to the TPIMs regime and how many people come off it.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.]
That concerned me, because nothing in the Bill allows for the gap between the passing of the Bill and the Act coming into force, and the resources needed by the police being in place.
It is not only a question of money; it is about the extra surveillance that will be required, given that some control orders will no longer be available under the TPIM regime. Primarily, they are what I would call the curfew measures—the overnight residence requirements—the period of which will be shorter than that available under the control order system, and the relocation measures, which will not be available under the TPIM regime, thus requiring much greater use of surveillance officers. As DAC Osborne said in response to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, it takes about 12 months to train surveillance officers and ensure that they are ready to be deployed in a challenging security environment. The aim of the amendment is to prevent a gap arising between the time at which resources are made available by the Home Office and the time at which they come online.

Stephen Phillips: Can the hon. Lady point to any Act of Parliament that has ever gone through this House and the other place with a commencement provision that is dependent on the views of third parties about whether sufficient resources are in place to carry its purposes into effect?

Shabana Mahmood: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we are dealing with a Bill relating to terrorism, which is incredibly serious. Such Bills are very different in nature from other measures. The thrust of my amendment is to deal with the issue of resources coming online. We are moving from a regime under which additional resources were not necessary, because of the nature of the measures in place, to one in which there will be greater risk, which the Government say can be managed by the provision of those additional resources. The amendment would prevent the time gap and the additional risk that it will cause.

Stephen Phillips: Is the answer to my question “no”?

Shabana Mahmood: I am not aware, off the top of my head, of such an Act of Parliament, but that is not a good point, because the amendment does not seek to frustrate the Government’s purpose in introducing the TPIM regime, but to mitigate a risk that we heard about from DAC Osborne. It does not matter if it has not arisen in another Act of Parliament; I do not think that DAC Osborne has given that kind of evidence before, and I am very worried about that security gap.

Julian Huppert: It always worries me when people say that terrorism is just completely different from everything else we do in our legal system. Different people have been on control orders at different times and, depending on how many there were, presumably more or less surveillance was needed. Should the previous Government have done such an assessment of needs before imposing a control order on someone, because of the extra resources needed, or does the hon. Lady agree that we should have a legal framework and that we should get on with it in that way?

Shabana Mahmood: With respect, the hon. Gentleman misses the point of the amendment. The control order regime allowed for a range of measures for which a different level of resource was required, and where there was a different security environment for the police to operate in. The new regime has a lesser menu, with two specific measures no longer available—the curfew for 16 hours and the relocation provision—so not only money, but greater resources will be required. We heard evidence from Lord Carlile, who said that under control orders, it cost about £1.8 million per control order, but now there is a risk of a TPIM costing around £18 million. It is not just about money, but about the extra surveillance officers required. People will no longer be kept in their home for up to 16 hours or be relocated somewhere where they do not have contacts with their friends, so they can get on with planning attacks. Therefore, more surveillance will be required. DAC Osborne clearly said that training a surveillance officer so that they were ready to be deployed in a security environment of the kind envisaged under the TPIM regime would take more than a year. It is because he said that that I have tabled the amendment.

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. Does she agree that Ministers will take advice from officials and experts in the field about when the capacity is such that any particular piece of legislation can be commenced? The importance of including the amendment in the Bill is precisely because much of the activity is hidden and secret. My hon. Friend is right, as the public need to be satisfied, through the inclusion of her amendment, that an agreement will be made between those responsible for resources and the Secretary of State.

Shabana Mahmood: I agree that it is important to amend the Bill to satisfy Members and the wider public that not just the Home Secretary but the police are confident that everything is in place for the TPIMs regime to go online. I considered suggesting a time limit or including consequential amendments for the provision of 28 days, increasing that period to one year, but I felt it was more important to address the essential issue of resources.

James Brokenshire: The hon. Lady has been keen to highlight gaps, but does she accept that her drafting may expose a gap, with control orders having potentially fallen away before there is an agreement, as her drafting requires? How would there be a settlement of any issues that would arise?

Shabana Mahmood: I accept what the Minister says. I do not pretend that the drafting of the amendment is absolutely clear-cut and ready for inclusion in the Bill. The amendment is of a probing nature. However, if such an amendment were accepted, I would envisage that the control orders regime would continue until the resources are online and we can move to the new TPIM regime.
I want to put in place a mechanism for the discussion between the Home Secretary and the police and security services on resources, which should be ready to come online. I am aware, however, that there is already a system in place. In the first evidence session, DAC Osborne told us about the draft business plan that went to the Home Office the previous Friday. Presumably, there is already a Home Office structure in place. I am therefore ready to accept the fact that proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b) may be overtaken by the systems that the Home Office has in place for the consideration of the draft business case. DAC Osborne told us that that would take around two to three weeks. He was not able to give us greater clarity, but perhaps the Minister could discuss that in his response. The simple fact is that it takes a long time to train surveillance officers; DAC Osborne was clear about that. We will need many more of them when we move to the TPIM regime.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend’s amendment is a practical statement of issues that will concern the public and which continue to prey on my mind. Does she agree that as well as training new surveillance officers to take on board TPIMs, there will be huge pressures on the services as a result of the Olympics, which is probably the biggest security threat that we face? Does she share my concern that it is likely that people will return to London just before the Olympics?

Shabana Mahmood: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We have discussed the Olympics before in Committee, and they will be a major concern for the public, as well as for all hon. Members. She makes a good argument about the drain on resources and the ability of the police to cope with the increased threat due to the Olympics, as well as with the new TPIM regime, possibly at a time when the extra surveillance officers are not ready to be deployed immediately.
DAC Osborne spoke about assets, too. I assume that there would be requirements for other technical assets. I am a tech-know-nothing, so I do not know what they might be, but he made it clear that there would be additional assets. I can only guess that they must be of a technical variety, but that they would have to be designed, ordered and made to order for the Home Office. I cannot imagine that that task can be completed merely in weeks. I assume that that is why he made it clear that it would take more than a year for them to be completely ready and for the new regime to bed in, so that it works as effectively as the control order regime. The intention of the amendment is not to frustrate the will of the Government in introducing the new regime, but merely to prevent a security gap arising as a result of resources taking some time to come online and being ready to be deployed.
Amendment 141, like other parts of the Bill, is a direct lift from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. It relates to the annual renewal of the powers granted to the Secretary of State and makes it necessary to bring them back to the House so that they can be allowed to run for an additional year—essentially, it is a sunset clause. The amendment is based on oral evidence that we received from Liberty and Justice, which were both very clear about the importance of bringing the powers back to Parliament every year for annual renewal and confirmation that they are still needed. I do not think that Opposition Members have often agreed with the position taken by Liberty in relation to control orders. However, I was struck by the fact that when Shami Chakrabarti gave evidence on behalf of Liberty, she said—to be fair, she choked on these words—that she would take the current control orders regime with annual renewal, rather than the new TPIM regime.

Tobias Ellwood: I do not wish to throw the hon. Lady off the direction in which she is trying to go. She plucks out evidence from Liberty to push the case that control orders with annual renewal are better than the TPIM regime. However, Lord Howard and others also said that we are legislators—legislation is what we do. If circumstances change and this Bill is no longer necessary, we should have faith that we will be able to revise it, rather than having to lean on sunset clauses. Does not that make amendment 141 somewhat irrelevant?

Shabana Mahmood: I was going to come on to the evidence given by Lord Carlile and Lord Howard. The hon. Gentleman is right that they were clear—Lord Carlile was very clear—and I take on board the broad thrust of their point that it is always open to Parliament to repeal an Act if circumstances change and we feel that it is no longer necessary. However, there are two reasons why I reject the view of Lord Carlile and Lord Howard in this instance.
First, I take on board what the Joint Committee on Human Rights said in its 2010 report. It looked at the issue of annual renewal in some depth and suggested something that is, in some respects, stricter—that the annual review should involve primary legislation. However, I propose that the mechanism is the same as that under the 2005 Act—through statutory instrument.
The Joint Committee also considered whether there might be an argument, if the debates will be relatively short and everything seems pretty straightforward, not to have them. However, my second argument in support of the amendment is the important symbolic value of Parliament renewing such powers annually.

James Brokenshire: I am sure that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East will be able to make his own case, but I am interested to know what the hon. Lady thought of his comments on Second Reading? He said:
“Given the constant arguing and bickering on this issue year after year when we should be seeking consensus in the face of the terrible threats that terrorists bring, there is some merit in Parliament’s reaching a settled view.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 84-85.]
Does she accept that there is a balance to be struck and that having an annual renewal might not aid that settled position?

Shabana Mahmood: When possible, it is best that we work together in the spirit of consensus to reach a settled view. However, holding an annual review has the important symbolic value of indicating that the measures are exceptional and that we view them as a temporary way to deal with a threat that has presented itself, but with which we have no other way of dealing at the moment.
I have taken on board some of our earlier discussions about the duty to consult and the importance of prosecution under the new regime, as compared with the control orders regime. I was struck by the exchange between the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles. My right hon. Friend made the point that that duty to look to prosecution whenever possible is no different under the new regime from under control orders. I do not have the direct reference to hand, but I recall the Minister saying that there was a symbolic importance to having prosecution, and that including the desire for prosecution in the Bill concentrates the mind.
I plead those two points in support of amendment 141. There is symbolic importance in Parliament saying that it views the measures as exceptional and that we would dearly like to be in a situation in which we do not need them any more, so we will consider the position annually. That approach would also concentrate the mind, because we would have to think regularly, “Is this something we still need? Is this something that is still desirable?” In an ideal world, we would have no need for the measures.

Stephen Phillips: Immediately before the passage in the purple speech made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East to which the Minister referred, the right hon. Gentleman said:
“we could also see it”—
the removal of the sunset provision—
“as a positive development if Parliament can reach a consensus and settled view.”
Has the hon. Lady discussed with him the fact that, unless he has changed his mind, he will not be able to support her amendment?

Shabana Mahmood: I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East will gladly explain his position with the customary brilliance that he has already deployed to great effect in Committee. I am speaking to amendment 141 as an Opposition Front Bencher, and I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the speech of the shadow Home Secretary in which she expressed concern about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny as a result of the lack of annual renewal.

Stephen Phillips: This is partly my fault—I apologise to the hon. Lady—because I should have given the entire quotation. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East said:
“On making the powers permanent, I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said about that reducing parliamentary oversight”—
that is a reference to the Front-Bench position to which the hon. Lady refers—
“but we could also see it as a as a positive development if Parliament can reach a consensus and settled view.”—[Official Report, 7 June 2011; Vol. 529, c. 84.]
The right hon. Gentleman has extraordinarily detailed knowledge in this area, and that was the view that he expressed on Second Reading. Does the hon. Lady agree that is a great shame that Opposition Front Benchers are not listening to Labour Back Benchers with considerably greater knowledge of the area than them?

Shabana Mahmood: As I said earlier, I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East will fully explain his position. The annual review is a judgment call. This exceptional and very different feature exists in no other part of our legal system, so it is important that we make it clear to the public that we will consider the matter annually and that we do not judge it to be permanent. Even if the process has only symbolic value, it is important that we say that. I agree with Liberty that “permanent exceptionalism” is not desirable.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a noble and indeed honourable suggestion that we need to debate the matter every year. It fits in with the democratic spirit in which we debate legislation. However, the hon. Lady said that terrorism legislation and dealing with terrorist activities are somewhat different to other aspects of Government business. We rely on the security services to advise us when the situation changes, and that would then require us to say, “This legislation is now out of date.” Having a debate might be a symbolic gesture, but I am concerned that we would be doing that for the wrong reasons. We should wait until the security services inform us that the scenario has changed and there is no longer a requirement for the Bill.

Shabana Mahmood: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that the Home Secretary is brought to the House each year to justify such an exceptional measure. That gives Members the opportunity to raise objections that their constituents might have about the regime. As I said earlier, I think that the process will concentrate the mind. The symbolic value of engaging in such a debate is not a fiction. The process concentrates the mind and makes us ask ourselves each year, “Do we still need this?” In an ideal world, we would not have such a system at all. I think we are all very clear about that. However, this is not an ideal world, but it is good that Parliament has the opportunity to ask itself that question every year. For Members who feel strongly that the regime is so exceptional that we should not have it, and who object to it on a point of principle, it is important that they have an opportunity to put their argument.

Tobias Ellwood: Is the hon. Lady saying that she objects on a point of principle? Does she believe that we should not have control orders or TPIMs?

Shabana Mahmood: I am sorry, but I did not hear the hon. Gentleman.

Tobias Ellwood: I will read Hansard carefully, but the hon. Lady gave us the impression that she did not want control orders or TPIMs and that she objected to them. Is that what she is saying?

Shabana Mahmood: Clearly, in an ideal world, we would not have the need for control orders or TPIMs because we would be able to meet the risks that we face through our normal system. However, this is not an ideal world. For various reasons, we cannot convert the intelligence material that we are able to get on these individuals into evidence for use in a court of law. I think that I am being very clear and I have not said anything different from what the position has always been, but if there was a lack of clarity, let me make the point again. Our position has always been that we would not need such a regime in an ideal world, but this is not an ideal world. Intelligence material cannot always be converted into evidence that can be presented before a jury in a court of law. At the moment, we therefore need another system for dealing with such individuals.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for both amendments. Is she surprised that the Government and some of their Back Benchers are trying to stop a debate taking place when this Government have introduced more opportunities for Back Benchers—

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lee Scott: Order. I do not think that we can have interventions on an intervention.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Back Benchers have more opportunities to have their say in a variety of Backbench Business Committee debates on the Floor of the House each Thursday. I find it surprising that Back Benchers are arguing that they do not want to hold the Executive to account.

Shabana Mahmood: I agree with the thrust of what my hon. Friend says.

Stephen Phillips: On that basis, will the hon. Lady undertake, on behalf of the Opposition, that if a sunset clause were introduced into the Bill, Labour Members would have a free vote every year and would not be whipped, whether they were in opposition or in government? If she will not give that undertaking, what on earth is the point of amendment 141?

Shabana Mahmood: The point of the amendment is so that the Government of the day can be brought to the House to justify an exceptional measure that exists in no other part of our legal system. Such an arrangement has been in place under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005.
The process of coming back to the House every year concentrates the mind. Hon. Members should not forget that the control orders regime changed. It was introduced in 2005 in respect of the Belmarsh decision, and all those subject to it were foreign nationals. Over time, it has changed. At the moment, it also applies to British nationals. The current arrangements allow for an annual debate about the nature of the regime, about to whom it applies, and about how it works in practice. It is important for the Government of the day to put its case before the House so that Parliament can take a view about whether to continue the regime.

Tobias Ellwood: I am now confused about why the hon. Lady tabled the amendment. The hon. Member for Bradford South suggested that we would not want the matter to be debated, but we can debate and scrutinise the activities of the Home Office all the time, such as during Opposition day debates. We can bring up the principle of control orders or TPIMs at any point during the year, so the symbolic discussion of whether they should exist can happen not just annually, but at any time. The hon. Lady might want a mechanism that could amend or question the legislation, but that could be done only after the security services had given the green light to say that the situation has changed.
I am unclear about whether the hon. Lady is saying that the debate should be held in case a change to the legislation is required, or just so that the matter can be debated in principle. If it is the former, we cannot do so without the security services; if it is the latter, we can do it at any time of the year.

Shabana Mahmood: Amendment 141 replicates the position under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 on the continuation of measures for another year. It is not about subsequently amending the legislation, but about continuing the Home Secretary’s power to make the measures in the first place. It is important that Parliament says clearly that the regime is an unattractive and undesirable aspect of our legislative framework, but because it is necessary, we should continue to question at least annually whether it should remain. It would be wrong to decide now that the regime should be a permanent part of our legislative framework without further recourse to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his position, but we take a different view. Such an arrangement is important not just for symbolic value, but because it would concentrate the mind and continue the position under the 2005 Act, and that was why I tabled the amendment.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Scott. I apologise to the Committee; after speaking, I will have to go to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is discussing police bail and other urgent issues.
I am pleased that the Opposition withdrew their original amendment 115. We discussed obvious flaws in a previous sitting; that amendment’s obvious flaw—although perhaps it was deliberate in intent—was that it had a sunset clause, after which we would revert to control orders. I am delighted that that was not moved, as it would have been very poor.
Amendment 141 suffers on a technical level from a less obvious flaw; I think that the hon. Lady’s copying from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was slightly wrong. It would reinstate clause 2 but fail to reinstate the rest of the Bill’s clauses. I am sure that that is an unintended drafting error and that she therefore will not put it to a vote, because it simply would not work.

Shabana Mahmood: Amendment 141 refers to
“clause 2 and all other consequential clauses.”
Clause 2 is the operative clause of the TPIMs regime and everything else is as a result of that.

Julian Huppert: That is what proposed new subsection (2A) states, but new section (2B) does not allow the Secretary of State not to expire clause 2. It is a small technical error that I am sure can be fixed at a later point. It caused me to think, however, about why there should be a sunset clause and how it should operate. I agree with and accept the principle that exceptional legislation requires some sort of escape mechanism, but I still hope that we can get this legislation into a state where it is not so exceptional. I realise that I failed earlier to convince members of the Committee to try to fit the provision within the legal framework.

Hazel Blears: In the early stages of our proceedings we had an extensive debate about the hon. Gentleman’s amendments that sought to provide the foundations for TPIMs on police bail. Does he still take the view that police bail is an appropriate mechanism for ensuring the security of our country?

Julian Huppert: I am disappointed to say that the right hon. Lady is entirely predictable. I was tempted to say exactly what she was going to say, but actually, I do think that police bail will work. We have heard that the Opposition believe police bail to be a workable mechanism, and they have indicated that they support the draft Bill. Perhaps they need to reconsider—

Lee Scott: Order. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the amendments under discussion.

Julian Huppert: I apologise for being led astray by the right hon. Lady. I have not yet given up hope that we can make the situation less exceptional and work within the legal framework, although that is not what the shadow Minister is calling for. What is the purpose of sunset clauses? There seem to be four purposes, which I will briefly explore. First, they flag up the fact that a piece of legislation is exceptional. Secondly, sunset clauses also ensure a debate each year, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood. To be honest, however, such debates have brought limited light to the matter; they are not particularly useful ways of looking at the situation and we have heard fixed positions reiterated and many of the same speeches given every year. As has been said, there are other opportunities for us to debate important issues. There is value in the debate provided by a sunset clause, but it is limited.
The same point applies to the vote that happens every year. That vote has not been exciting, and indeed has been somewhat tokenistic—some would say that that is true of far too many votes in this House, but I will refrain from discussing that before I get told off again. We know about Government whipping, and that the Opposition are still whipping people to support control orders. I am not sure that the vote is always helpful.
Finally, the sunset clause provides a chance to review the policy, and allows the Government to stop and think about whether something is the right thing to do, collect evidence and take stock of their position. I do not think that annual votes and debates help much with that review. Realistically, the Government cannot carry out a proper review annually because the resources required are taken up with other things. However, getting the Government to carry out a proper review is important.
The Government carried out a full review of counter-terror strategy, which was a detailed and helpful piece of work. It did not go as far as I would have liked, but it has taken steps in the direction in which I and the Government believe. Ensuring that such a review happens regularly is the most important use of a sunset clause that I have mentioned.
The question is how we ensure that a review is done properly and not simply as a token. My idea is that every new Parliament should be forced to take a stance on terrorist legislation and think carefully, “We are now in a new place. Now is the time to work out what we do, and do not, need.” The same sort of detailed work should be carried out by an independent investigator such as Lord Macdonald. That would fit with the idea of a five-year sunset clause, at which I hope the Minister will look seriously. Each Parliament would have to consider the matter, and because that would happen roughly a year and a half or two years into a new Parliament, the Government would have the chance to carry out the review properly and come up with a serious piece of work. Whoever forms the next Government, and the one after that, we all expect them to treat this matter seriously and come up with a settled position, rather than letting legislation go through on the nod.

Shabana Mahmood: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the mere act of having a general election somehow creates a new environment? It creates a new political landscape, but I am interested in why he thinks it would also create a new security landscape.

Julian Huppert: It does not, of itself, create a new security landscape. The question is how one comes up with a regular cycle, as part of which one looks at the security landscape afresh and says, “Right, we’re now going to review where we’ve got to,” rather than just carrying on with business as usual. Realistically, there is a new security landscape every day, because new information comes in, but one cannot do a proper review on such a time scale.
What I have described is roughly the right time scale for a detailed piece of work. Shortly after the Government took office, they announced they would do a full-scale review and take their time to get things right. That is very welcome, and I hope they will have the insight to look seriously at my idea so that all future Governments will have to do such a proper piece of work.

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood has presented an extremely powerful, articulate and convincing argument for the amendments.
On amendment 126, which relates to resources, we all heard evidence in our first two sittings that caused us some concern about not only the resources that would be available, but the time scale under which they could be put in place. My hon. Friend referred to the evidence from Deputy Assistant Commissioner Osborne, who thought it would take about a year to recruit enough people, train them, put them in place and given them the skills to do the surveillance. That was a concern for him.
I raised my point of order at the beginning of the sitting because it is important, if we are to reach a considered judgment, to have a note from DAC Osborne about what resources will be required. The Minister has made great play of the fact that the police and the security services will be provided with extra resources to fill the gap they have acknowledged is there as a result of moving from control orders to TPIMs. However, we are not in a position to put precise figures to the Minister at the moment, and it would be helpful if we could.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on another issue, and perhaps he can give us a bit more information. He will have heard that Lord Carlile estimated the cost for each of the people on a TPIM who might require 24/7 surveillance at between £11 million and £18 million. He does not need to go into detail about the extra resources that he is providing, but the Committee is entitled to a statement from him about whether those extra resources are commensurate with the figures Lord Carlile referred to. The Minister does not have to give us exact figures, but if the resources are long way from the figures Lord Carlile talked about, that would increase the risk that we have to manage, which would cause me and other members of the Committee great concern. I therefore press the Minister, in responding to the amendment, to say whether he has looked at the figures Lord Carlile talked about. Is the business case that has been submitted to the Home Office and which is under consideration in the same ball park as the figures that have been raised, or is there a significant gap?

Stephen Phillips: I am concerned about the right hon. Lady’s point of order and the figures that Lord Carlile gave. First, I rather suspect that he should not have given those figures at all. Does she agree? Secondly, she was a Home Office Minister. Does she agree, therefore, that DAC Osborne probably should not have agreed to give the Committee the information she raised in her point of order, because it is presumably secret? He does not have the right to—[ Interruption. ] This is an intervention, and if the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside has something to say, he will be able to say it in a moment. Perhaps he can stop chuntering from a sedentary position, because I am trying to raise a serious point.

Mark Tami: Who is chairing this?

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful for that, too, as I am sure you are, Mr Scott—I think you know what your function is.
The right hon. Lady was a member of the previous Government. Is the information DAC Osborne gave us the sort that the Government are at liberty to hand out, or is it in fact secret?

Hazel Blears: I think it is perfectly proper. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I am trying to tread a careful line because I am conscious of the fact that if specific figures are in the public domain, they can give an indication to people who want to harm us of our competence and capabilities in meeting threats. I simply seek to press the Minister on whether the resources he will provide for the Security Service and the police will meet the gap that will result from the transition from control orders to TPIMs. If the figures were wildly different, it would be a concern.
DAC Osborne has given the Committee evidence and has undertaken to provide further information. It is perfectly proper for us not to self-censor and to press for that information. DAC Osborne might come back—not this afternoon, because he is abroad, I think—and say that he wants to go no further in giving that information, and we would take a view about whether that was appropriate.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Stephen Phillips: She should give way to me first.

Hazel Blears: I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for sharing her experience with the Committee. I do not for one moment suggest that the Committee should self-censor; I simply suggest that dangers may be associated with the provision of such information. I am sure that she agrees that the judgment must be reached by Commissioner Yates and DAC Osborne, but perhaps no further information will be forthcoming.

Hazel Blears: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a reasonable point. If DAC Osborne comes back and says that, for reasons of national security, he does not want to go into further detail, the Committee would have to take a view on the evidence that has already been given. However, when evidence is given, it is appropriate for us to be able to pursue it.

Tobias Ellwood: I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for letting me know where I sit in the pecking order of speakers.
I have just done some brief calculations. From my experience in the military world, my view is that the figures are wildly inaccurate. The Committee should not focus too much time on them because they seem very high indeed. Without accurate figures in front of us, we would be misguided to make any judgment about cost.

Hazel Blears: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s extensive experience. However, he is not in the same position as Lord Carlile, who, for the past 10 years, has been intimately involved in reviewing the control orders regime. He has looked at every single control order and talked to the agencies. He is not a novice in this area; he has extensive experience. Unless I receive evidence to the contrary, I must give weight—and the Committee must give some weight—to the evidence that Lord Carlile has provided.

Tobias Ellwood: This is an important area to explore if it is to be taken seriously. However, does the £11 million figure include costs that would be incurred anyway? The security and military services incur costs through day-to-day work, regardless of whether they are in operation. We do not know whether such costs were included in the figures. Without a breakdown of how the money will be spent and put together, and whether the specific detail relates to an individual, a number of individuals or agencies, it is wrong to take the figures into too much serious consideration.

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that he does not know or have a detailed idea of what the costs may be. Lord Carlile gave us that evidence and he has been involved in the area for 10 years or so. I respect him enormously and I do not think that he would come to the Committee and simply pluck figures out of the air. We may be in some difficulty when DAC Osborne comes back if he does not want to give us further detailed information, and we will have to take a view on that. However, I, for one, would not say that Lord Carlile does not understand the requirements of the provisions, or the costs that might be incurred as a result of the increased risk that his Government’s Bill presents.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend rightly says that we do not want to delve into particular cases. It is unfair of the Government to say that we cannot discuss any of this at any time. Would it be a good idea, at some stage down the track, if the Joint Intelligence Committee—

Hazel Blears: And the Intelligence and Security Committee.

Gerry Sutcliffe: —and the ISC had the opportunity to discuss these issues with the Government?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, and that may be an appropriate forum within which to take evidence on implementation, cost-effectiveness and so on. I seek to go as far as we can, commensurate always with the need to maintain security. The Committee needs as much information as it can get before it makes its decision.

Paul Goggins: As ever, my right hon. Friend is treading a delicate line on what information can be in the public domain and what needs to be kept secret. The exchange with Government Members underlines the importance of paragraph (b) of amendment 126. Some of this information will not be allowed into the public domain, so the public need to have the reassurance of knowing that the Secretary of State has agreed with the senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism that sufficient resources are in place. Does she think that her argument emphasises the importance of that paragraph?

Hazel Blears: Mr right hon. Friend makes exactly the point that he made in an earlier intervention. It is a tremendously powerful point, and our debate has illustrated the constraints in which we operate. Some of this information is necessarily secret, because it relates to the capability of our services to protect us, so there should be something in the Bill to reassure the public that this debate has taken place and that there is a certification that enough resources are in place. The public would then be able to sleep in their beds happily knowing that the resources are sufficient to enable the security services to cope. That is a tremendously powerful point.
There is another issue about resources. The Government have acknowledged that, as a result of the loosening of the measures that can be imposed under a TPIM compared with the measures that can be imposed under a control order, there will be an increased gap to be met. That acknowledgment is clear, otherwise extra resources would not be forthcoming from the Government for greater surveillance. Some of that weakening of measures relates to relocation, exclusion, association and the overnight residence provision. I have made it clear in all my contributions during our proceedings that I am particularly concerned about the relocation provisions. I remain concerned.
It is possible that when the TPIM legislation comes in, the Secretary of State will have to take a view after 28 days as to whether there is sufficient evidence to impose a TPIM. Under the TPIM regime there will not be a relocation provision, so the person who was formerly subject to a control order will be free to reside in his locality or where his family are. We know that at least five of the people who are currently under control orders with a relocation provision are from the London area. That was in the evidence that DAC Osborne gave us.
I do not want to raise unnecessary fears. My long association with security matters means that I would not do that. I feel a personal responsibility, however, to highlight this issue, put it on the record and see if we can get it addressed. Will the Minister consider a transitional period for those control orders, because five of the most dangerous people in the UK—otherwise they would not be under control orders—could return to London at a time when the security threat is incredibly high and the security services are stretched? Such a period could continue a relocation provision to take us beyond the Olympic games. That would be a sensible, pragmatic measure and it would enable us to keep the relocation provision in place.
We heard from DAC Osborne that relocation is the most useful provision that we have. Lord Howard said that it was a useful provision. If someone is relocated, perhaps to Norwich or another area where the policing pressures are not as great, the resources for 24/7 surveillance might be easier to obtain, and the gap caused by the reduction in overnight residence orders could be filled. This is a genuine, heartfelt request to the Minister: is there not a temporary provision that we can put in place to get us over the period of the Olympic games, when we will be facing such a tremendous pressure on our services?

Stephen Phillips: The right hon. Lady has been utterly consistent about this. She has a point of principle, which it is evident to all members of the Committee she deeply believes in. We might be out of order discussing this, but does she at least agree that if the Bill becomes law, the individuals in question can be excluded not just from London but from any Olympic site during the Olympic games?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his point. We did not have a long discussion about the exclusion provisions when we were considering schedule 2. It will be interesting—

Lee Scott: Order. We have to stick to elements relating to resources.

Hazel Blears: Mr Scott, I would say that my point does relate to resources, because I am arguing that, as a result of the move to the TPIM regime, there will be an increased risk; extra resource will be required for us to manage that risk; and a particular part of the increased risk will relate to the lack of a relocation provision. That is why it is important that there is agreement that sufficient resource is in place under the Bill to reassure all of us and the public that the risk can be managed and we can all be safe and secure. I will obviously be careful not to stray too far, Mr Scott, but I do not think that we had as full a discussion about exclusion as we might have had. We talked about place, area and locality. I remember it well; it is all flooding back to me. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, but I am not convinced that sufficient resource will be in place to manage the fact that we will not have a relocation provision.

Tom Brake: The right hon. Lady is flagging up concerns about resources and particularly about the Olympics, but I wonder why she is talking only about the Olympics. Shortly after the Olympics, there will be other occasions, in respect of which she could perhaps argue that a temporary provision should be in place because additional resource might be required. I am referring to events taking place in London beyond the Olympic games.

Hazel Blears: I think that the Olympic games are a unique event in our capital city. If the hon. Gentleman looks at reports of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which has looked into the pressures on security at the time of the Olympic games, he will see that this is not a normal set of affairs; it is not a small event. It is the biggest event, with probably the biggest security risks that we have dealt with in the past 20 or 30 years. Therefore, I do think that it is appropriate for me to ask the Minister—I hope that he gives me a specific reply—whether it is possible to have a transitional provision to allow for relocation arrangements to remain in place in relation to those people who are subject to TPIMs after their control orders expire as a result of the new legislation in order to take us over the period of the Olympics. That would reassure many of us.
I want to say a few words about amendment 141 and the idea of a sunset clause. My instinct is to share that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. If we could get away from an annual set-piece analysis of the legislation, that would be helpful. I reluctantly conclude that we are likely to face a sustained and severe terrorist threat in this country for many years to come. I see no evidence whatever of the threat reducing or of our not having to take measures to deal with the security threat that we face.
As a result of all my misgivings about our ability to manage the risk and the uncertainty about the introduction of the new TPIM regime and the move away from control orders, I think that a close examination of the implementation of the new regime, the provision of resources and the ability to fill the gap created by the dilution of the measures in the TPIM regime will be a necessity. Probably in the next 12 months and perhaps even after that, there will be a greater need for scrutiny of the regime than there has been in the past. I think that we could be managing increased risk and fragility unless the right resources are in place.
Therefore, I certainly support the idea of a review of the legislation, as suggested in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, after it has been in operation for 12 months. I would want to be examining closely what the legislation’s effect had been. We are taking a step into the dark, and despite the Minister’s lengthy and erudite reassurance that all will be well, all will be fine, there will not be a problem, I say, “Rather him than me.” He will be responsible for the operation of the legislation, and we need close and intense scrutiny of the implementation of his new regime. It may throw up some new problems that he will have to deal with.
In his review of control orders a couple of years ago, Lord Carlile, whom I genuinely respect and who knows absolutely what he is doing, said,
“In my view it is said all too easily that the authorities have a panoply of effective means of enforcement of control orders, including electronic and physical surveillance. All forms of surveillance involve considerable human resources. This is especially so of watching and following. A complete package of measures requires a secure place of observation”
and
“several officers, observing, logging and recording images.
The importance of ensuring that control orders are enforced means that so-called ‘light touch’ control orders”—
we resisted the temptation to debate mini-control orders and so on—
“are not a realistic proposition save in exceptional cases. My discussions with Ministers and officials leave me with the conclusion that the limitations of so-called ‘light touch’ control orders are well understood.”
Again, those views expressed by Lord Carlile do not reassure me that the new regime of diluted measures, with no power of relocation, and reduced overnight residence requirements and restrictions of access to computers and mobile phones will put us in a position in which everything will be quite as wonderful as the Minister has said it will be, unless he provides significant extra resources and a time period in which to recruit new agents, train them and get them in place. If he could give us a transitional provision on relocation, that would greatly reassure me and, I am sure, many members of the public.

Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood on the way in which she spoke to her amendment this morning. She provoked an interesting debate, and has taken us to the heart of two key issues. One is the practical issue of resources, and like many members of the Committee I look forward to what the Minister has to say about that. The other is the principle issue relating to renewal or repeal of counter-terrorism legislation. I am pleased that so many members of the Committee seem to have come armed with the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate, and I will say more about that shortly.
I want to talk first about resources. My real concern, which is shared by other hon. Members, is that there is a particular political dynamic within the Government that could cause the wrong thing to happen. Any Minister in any Government will commence legislation when resources are in place and to the best of their knowledge the policy that the House has introduced in legislation can be delivered on the ground and in practice. But there is a dynamic within the Government to rush headlong into the new system of TPIMs and to get outside the control order system. What worries me is that that political imperative will become so strong that a risk too far is taken. That is a genuine concern. We recognise that the Government will get their way, and that we will move forward, but there is real concern that if they do so too hastily, there will be too great a risk.
The first amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood would deal with that issue in a practical way. She mentioned some of the matters that the Minister must take into account. Money is obviously crucial, but it is only part of the picture. She talked about the need to recruit and train the relevant staff because, by definition, the TPIMs regime will require more people to make it work than the previous control order regime. That must be done with great care and great skill, and requires time. In his evidence to the Committee, Stuart Osborne referred to the likelihood that it would take at least a year to bed in.
It is evident from our debates that the Minister cannot escape the concentration of risk when he assesses how quickly the new system can be implemented. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles has made the point many times and with great conviction, and rightly so, that the prospect of the wholesale relocation of dangerous suspects back to, not only one city, but one part of a city is concerning. That must weigh in the Minister’s mind as he considers when the new regime should come into place.
In our previous sitting, I went through some of the relevant issues. The suspects will be in their home environment, with the more immediate access to contacts and networks that that necessarily entails. The physical environment will present difficulties, and we want to be satisfied that the powers of exclusion and association are sufficient to help the police and the Security Service to deal with those difficulties.
Whenever we have such debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South continues to raise the question of returning people who have been convicted of terrorist offences to similar areas. Will the Minister update the Committee on how many convicted terrorists are expected to be released from prison over the next 12 months? I submit that that number will be greater than the number subject to control orders, so that substantially adds to the risk.
I pay tribute, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles did the other day, to those in the agencies who are working in communities to try to mitigate and manage the risks posed by returning prisoners. None the less, that has to be added to the mix, and it is an issue of concern.

Bob Stewart: The real worry is that, in my experience, terrorists who have been convicted and sent to prison get out after relatively light sentences. For example, the five people who killed six of my soldiers and 11 other people, and against whom I gave evidence, were out after five years. They are still terrorists, and they still have evil intent. I endorse the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

Paul Goggins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s observation, which gives me an opportunity to repeat what the Minister said earlier. The observations made by the hon. Member for Beckenham during the Committee’s proceedings have been perceptive and powerful, and I am grateful for that. He has made another important point this morning.
The risk posed by some of those returning prisoners will be substantial and will have to be managed by the police, the probation service, the Security Service, and others, as those prisoners re-enter society. We should not underestimate that risk, and the numbers are growing, which is a concern.
If we add together the Olympic games, returning prisoners, the new regime and the police and Security Service’s trying to recruit and train, it is a potent mix at a time of severe threat. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles made a powerful argument for a transitional phase, for putting back the date of commencement and for doing the right thing to manage the risk without putting the public at risk.
There are also concerns as we look at the wider policing environment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South has mentioned. He will have read and heard the comments of Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who spoke about the current policing environment in his usual candid tone. When I was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, it was my privilege to work closely with Sir Hugh to address organised crime and terrorism in Northern Ireland. He is a first-rate police officer and a first-rate chief constable, and we should take his advice seriously.
Sir Hugh drew attention to three issues. I am sure that the Minister has studied his speech, but I encourage all members of the Committee to look at what he said. He discussed the tight time scales. We all know that the Government are in a headlong rush on every front to bring about reform and change, but we cannot and should not take unnecessary risks in this area. None the less, we have to include the imminent arrival of police commissioners in our consideration. Issues raised by my hon. Friend the other day still require answers.
Sir Hugh discussed the change in the architecture, particularly at national level, of the policing structure. In addition, the National Policing Improvement Agency will be dismantled, and a new national crime agency, of which we know the outline but not the detail, will be created. Added to that is the ongoing review of pay and pensions, which does not make an atmosphere conducive to a huge change in managing one of our greatest risks. Sir Hugh also made an interesting point about funding: as the National Policing Improvement Agency disappears, many of the things that it currently pays for do not disappear, such as the police national database. All those costs are now being loaded on to local police forces and authorities, adding further pressure. Some of them will have to deal with the threat from terrorists. I make those points to amplify the challenge for the police in managing further change. Why can the change not be put off for another year or two, until such time as the police are satisfied that the environment in which they operate is sufficiently stable?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles made a number of points about our first evidence session, and the important questions that are still to be answered. We do not know to what extent it might be possible to have them answered in full. They include the question of the business case; the cost of surveillance; the balance of risks between the new, less stringent regime the Government propose and the need for more resources; and whether those resources are adequate. I look forward to the Minister’s response and, I hope, further amplification on what information may be available to the Committee as it reaches conclusions.
Comments were made earlier about my observations about renewal on Second Reading. There is a place for sunset clauses in certain legislation, and for renewal dates. Without straying too far from today’s business, I will give two brief examples from my experience as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. We had special provisions for the recruitment of police officers in Northern Ireland, which required derogation from European employment legislation, to allow the recruitment of one Catholic officer for one non-Catholic officer. That was obviously controversial. However, 10 years ago, 8% of police officers in Northern Ireland were Catholic; now that figure is 30%. The end result of that legislation was certainly worth while. However, it was so controversial that it could not be implemented on a permanent basis. Once we reached Lord Patten’s recommendations on representation of Catholics in the police, it was right that the legislation should come to an end. That was renewed every two years; earlier this year it was not renewed. I fully support the decision not to renew those special provisions. That is a case where renewal every two years made sense.
Another instance results from the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which saw the replacement of the Diplock courts. I am sure that our hon. Friend the judge—I am referring to the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham—will be interested in that. Again, it was very controversial, as justice moved to a new system of judge-only trials in Northern Ireland. Quite rightly, that too is subject to renewal every two years. Just last week in Committee, it was agreed that those powers should be renewed for a further two-year period.
Those are examples in controversial areas—such as trial without a judge—where there is an argument, especially when trying to reach the point where the special provision is no longer required; and in relation to 50:50 recruitment of police officers in Northern Ireland. I believe that we should try to get to a different place on counter-terrorism legislation in general, and particularly a provision such as this one. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles that the risks we face, sadly, are not going to go away. Senior police officers repeatedly remind the public that such risks will be here for a considerable time—for the foreseeable future—so it is a pretence to think that we will not need these or similar powers, and we should not suggest to the public that we think differently.
It is an important part of the argument that we should strive for political consensus on such measures wherever we can. As I have tried to demonstrate, along with other Members, some of us have moved from positions that we once held, because we have reflected carefully on the evidence and principles involved, and we have come to different conclusions. My right hon. Friend has spoken persuasively about time limits. I have spoken about 14-day pre-charge detention. My hope, therefore, was that we would move towards a sufficient consensus, where we could say, “This is an agreed position. The threat will be here for some time and we can now agree on this piece of legislation. We don’t need to keep coming back to it and adding to the controversy, once we have a settled position.”
My problem today, in relation to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, is that I do not think that we have reached a sufficiently strong consensus. We have been through many of the Government’s proposals in great detail. We have discussed the gaps regarding relocation, time limits, and in policies on access to phones and the internet, as well as the absence of the reserve power that I proposed in an earlier amendment. Although we have not reached consensus, my hope is that the Minister will come back, either in further speeches today, or on Report, and bring us closer to that agreement. That would give me comfort, because we should not subject counter-terrorism legislation to annual renewal. The Minister, however, still has some way to go to cement that consensus.
My second difficulty relates to the short-term scenario that we face, particularly over the next 12 months, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles has spoken about that. Suspects will be relocated back to their own communities, and we must also deal with the emergence and release of convicted terrorist prisoners back into the community. The Olympic games are a target and there are other threats, such as that posed by Northern Ireland-related terrorism—we must not forget not only that the threat level is considered “severe” in Northern Ireland but that it is “substantial” here, which places an additional pressure on our police and security services. We need to go a good deal further to reach consensus on policy. The Minister must reflect on the next 12 months, when the risk will be great. It is the worst of all times to consider bringing in a new regime.
The Minister could alleviate my predicament by accepting the spirit—if not the letter—of amendment 126, which aims to make it absolutely clear that the new system would not come in until an explicit agreement is reached between the Secretary of State and those who would have to implement the powers in the proposals. If he were prepared to do that and ensure that we did not have a headlong rush in the face of increasing risk, he might get me off the hook. In principle, however, we should try to achieve a more settled position than annual renewal. We are not there yet, and that is the difficulty that I still have.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I shall be brief, because the arguments on resources have been well rehearsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, and by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles and for Wythenshawe and Sale East. There is a tremendous responsibility on the Minister to respond to those points.
I accept that the Minister has a difficult job in relation to the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East discussed the political imperative for introducing the Bill, which was recognised by Lord Carlile, who discussed how the Bill came together. I understand that Government Members want to see progress in relation to the TPIM regime because they thought that the old control order regime was ineffective and wrong. Taking that position is their right. We are in difficult circumstances, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood is right to push the Minister. She will accept that the technical drafting of the amendments may not be accurate, but their principle and the thrust behind them deserve a hearing from the Minister.
The coalition Government now have a track record, because they have been in power for over 12 months, and the public are worried about issues of security, the 20% cut in the Home Office budget and cuts to police numbers and to the terrorism budget. The Minister is asking us to accept that, despite everything that is taking place, there will be an increased risk, which will be mitigated by the extra resources that we are going to provide. However, for the obvious reasons that have been expressed, the Committee cannot push on the detail of what those increased resources will be, because of the risk to our country. I hope that the Minister will take seriously my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles about the possibility of the Joint Intelligence Committee and Intelligence and Security Committee examining such issues in greater detail, with the opportunity to see whether the increased resources have met the requirements.
The Olympics and Paralympics are unique events and, unfortunately, tragedies have occurred at previous games. This is not about scaremongering in any way, but having been a Sports Minister and having sat on the Olympic board, where security has been addressed, I know that there are great concerns about increased threats. Resources are available to the Olympic board for security issues, but the Minister should be aware of our concerns about the measure that will be lost on relocation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles made a powerful point about whether we can delay or find some transitional arrangement to meet the threat.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us today. If he cannot do so, we feel strongly that we may have to return to these issues. It was quite sad that we did not have the information that DAC Osborne said that we would have, because that would have been helpful. There is no doubt that increased surveillance will mean increased costs. On the reduction in police numbers, I am particularly concerned about the senior police officers we are losing because of the imposition of regulation A19. A lot of experience will go. The comments of Sir Hugh Orde, who has been around for a long time and who has much experience in difficult policing areas, should not go unnoticed.
There were catastrophes in the Home Office both when we were in government and more recently. You have ruled on this, Mr Scott, but the whole issue around police bail and what has happened and when it happened is of concern. I am sure that we will return to that on Thursday when we debate the police bail Bill. I hope that the Minister will understand our great concern about the changes he has made to the legislation, and he must ensure that not only we but the public feel reassured by the measures that he has introduced. It would be apt to have the opportunity to review amendment 141, for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East has stated, to see what has happened and to see where we are. I again hope that the Minister will accept that principle.

James Brokenshire: The amendments deal with two separate issues: resources and the duration of the provisions. It may interest the Committee to know that before I came to Committee this morning I undertook a joint briefing with the Metropolitan Police Service, the commissioner, the Home Secretary and other agencies involved in the security preparations and exercises that will be undertaken in coming months to ensure our preparedness for the Olympics. We certainly do not need any further underlining of the responsibilities of the Government and those agencies in ensuring that we present a safe and secure games.
The issue is a national one. It is not simply about London. Events will take place across the whole country. The torch relay will obviously touch all parts of our country as well. We are confident about the preparations undertaken to date, but we are in no way complacent, and will retain our resolve to fulfil our commitments to a safe and secure games.
A budget of £600 million has been allocated for Olympic security, but we believe on the basis of our current estimates and examinations that the budget can deliver on the basis of £475 million. Obviously the £600 million is retained, as it is the envelope within which we operate. The sum may not be needed in full, but it provides support for Olympic preparation security. The police and other agencies, and the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games, are doing good work to prepare for the Olympics. Things are being co-ordinated, and that work will be tested in the months ahead to ensure that there is the correct level of preparedness to deliver security at the games, as we all want.
As right hon. and hon. Members will understand from previous comments that I have made in Committee, we do not provide specific figures on counter-terrorism funding for the security services and the police. That is not because we want to hide information, but because of concerns about the underpinning of the capabilities and techniques, if that information were disclosed.
I appreciate the points that right hon. and hon. Members made—fairly, I think. I can tell them that we have had extensive discussions with the police and security services, not only recently but for months. The police and security services have been aware at least since February of the money available to enable them to begin developing additional capacity and capability for the preparations for transition to the TPIM regime.
Right hon. and hon. Members will have heard what I have said about confirmation from the security services about mitigating risk, and the overall arrangements. The Metropolitan Police Service and I have made it clear that from January, arrangements will be in place effectively to manage the transition from control orders to TPIMs. It would be irresponsible of the Government to introduce the new system when it was not safe to do so.
I understand the issues that are being flagged up, but we are confident, as I have said, about the preparations and capabilities that can be put in train. We are confident in the ability of the Security Service and the police to deal with the new system—and it is a new system that gives a broader context—with the significant resources that are being made available for an overall package of security in relation to TPIMs, and the use to which surveillance and other techniques will be put.

Paul Goggins: All members of the Committee understand the constraints under which the Minister operates. However, he will appreciate the difficulties in squaring what he just said—that the Government will be in a position to operate the new regime from January—with the comments of Stuart Osborne, who said:
“To get the resources that we anticipate we need will take more than a year, in terms of being able to get people trained and to get the right equipment.”––[Official Report, Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Public Bill Committee, 21 June 2011; c. 9, Q27.]
The Minister’s statement just now does not square with that of Mr Osborne. Will he deal with that point?

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question put (Standing Order No. 88).

Adjourned till this day at Four o’clock.